söndag 16 mars 2014

Critique of NIck Cooneys methodology and conclusions

Comments from this thread:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/worldpeacediet/permalink/10152379307369180/?stream_ref=2

"Carolyn,
for the purposes of animal advocacy, I disagree. I'm not familiar with
Nick Cooney's research (will look at it, thank you) but how can it ever
be right to persuade people to do something that's wrong? In fact, it's
speciesist. In relation to a human moral issue, we would never do this.
When we know that something is wrong, we are clear about that. For
example, we say that rape is wrong. We don't say that people should
continue to rape but to cut out the beatings with the rape, in the hope
that they'll eventually stop raping. Even that analogy is not a good
one, because that does at least involve inflicting less harm.
Vegetarianism inflicts as much or more harm than meat-eating, given that
dairy cows live longer than beef cows and therefore suffer more prior
to being slaughtered; vegetarians often compensate by eating more eggs
and dairy; and that more chickens die in the process of producing eggs
than cows, pigs etc. die in producing an equivalent amount of meat.
There is a very good reason for vegans to "be very uncomfortable" about
this, and that's because they know it's morally wrong to explicitly
promote something that's morally wrong. I think vegans ought to listen
to these feelings of discomfort and not dismiss their pangs of
conscience.I
think if we make it clear to people that, although veganism is the
goal, there is no expectation that they will necessarily transition to
veganism immediately, but that there is a way to do this whereby they
can choose the pace of change (as described above), then there is no
reason to promote vegetarianism as a "step" to veganism. That doesn't
mean that cutting out meat first, then eggs, then dairy can't be one
valid way of making the transition, so that the person is effectively
"vegetarian" for a period, but that doesn't mean that we ought to
explicitly promote vegetarianism as a morally coherent position and
engage in the meaningless and contradictory exercise of persuading
people to go vegetarian. We should always be clear that veganism is the
goal, regardless of how someone chooses to get there, or how long they
take.

The
reason I, for example, remained vegetarian for so long before becoming
vegan was because I had been wrongly led to believe that I was doing all
that was necessary for animals by being vegetarian. If we don't give
people a clear message and a clear goal regarding veganism, then they
can remain stuck at consuming happy meat or eggs and dairy for years.
Many of us have been in this position and seen it happen with others.

Why
are some of us so afraid to use the word, "vegan"? The more we use it,
the more it gets into the lexicon, the more normalised the concept of
veganism will become. This has already happened, to an extent, with more
and more frequent use of the word, "vegan" in films and other
mainstream media. There's no need for us to be timid about it."

---

Carolyn,
I will have a look at Nick Cooney's work, but I can safely say that I
will never try to persuade anyone that the goal is to exploit animals by
using dairy and eggs as a vegetarian. As a vegan, that makes absolutely
no sense to me for all the reasons I've already explained. My
conscience simply wouldn't allow me to do that, and I see it as not only
immoral but completely unnecessary. This is what resonates with me:

<<Don’t
fall into the welfarist trap of promoting vegetarianism. There is no
difference between flesh and other animal products. Animals used for
dairy are usually kept alive longer, treated as badly, if not worse,
than “meat” animals, and they all end up in the same slaughterhouse
anyway. Don’t promote “happy” cage-free eggs or “happy” meat or “happy”
dairy. All of that involves animal exploitation. Don’t let anyone tell
you that the public is too stupid or too uncaring to take veganism
seriously. That’s elitist propaganda that allows large animal welfare
groups to sell indulgences to the public by making people feel better
about animal exploitation.

We
can recognize that people will “get there at their own pace” but we
should not ever concede that the “there” is anything less than veganism.
Those who are not ready to go vegan will take whatever interim step
they choose but at least the message that veganism is the moral baseline
should be crystal clear.>> Gary L. Francione

--------

In Veganomics, Cooney suggests that we should urge people to go "meat-free" and not suggest they go vegetarian or vegan.

The
idea is that people will make incremental steps towards veganism - but
there's the implication at least that the dread "V" should not be used
(both of them, in this case). So the puzzle remains, people have to be
"let in" at some stage of the process to the "end game" of veganism, so
its got to be mentioned and promoted at some point.

Don't
scare people with the "V" word AT FIRST but mention it later seems to
be the plan in mind. However, ~that~ later is someone else's first
exposure to the arguments. How are we supposed to not scare some
individuals away (accepting these premises of course) while we are
letting the first group in on the vegan news?

We
can cut through all the politics of persuasion and deception by
promoting veganism at the start with an open acknowledgement that people
"get there" incrementally, a notion most animal advocates accept
already.

---

Indeed,
as a matter of common sense, it seems really absurd to say that if you
want a person to do X, you should encourage them to do Y. We wouldn't
think that this would make sense in any other social justice movement
or sphere of life, unless we were perhaps dealing with a contrarian
teenager! Not only is it deceptive, but if the aim of talking to someone
about Y is to get them to do X, then as Roger Yates
has pointed out, at some point *someone* has to talk to them about X.
Otherwise, how will they even know about the existence of X? If
so-called advocates of X think it's taboo and "counterproductive" to
talk about X, then who will tell them about X? This is really a very
convolutedly silly way of thinking.

---

Apart
from the illogic and ineffectiveness of the above as a strategy, we are
still left with the fact that if we are going to advocate vegetarianism
as a supposed "step" to veganism, without letting our interlocutor in
on the the fact that the ultimate goal is veganism, because we are too
wary of using the word, "vegan", we're choosing a utilitarian approach
which is based on believing that the ends justifies the means. I reject
that as an ethical position. As a vegan, I regard it as unethical to
promote something that's unethical, i.e. the exploitation of animals for
dairy and eggs, *no matter* what we think the outcome of that will be.
There is no right way to do something that's wrong; there is no right
way to promote something that's wrong.

I'm
not disputing that many of us were vegetarian prior to becoming vegan.
But that's no reason to think that our path must be the path for others.
Many of us, like me, were vegetarian because we knew no better. I had
to wait almost 30 years as a vegetarian before someone explained to me
why I needed to be vegan if I cared about animals. I truly wish I had
known 30 years sooner, as I really think I would have become vegan if
given the right information and ethical reasoning. I believe there are
many other people like me who sincerely *want* to do the right thing by
animals and will do it--i.e. go vegan--if they understand clearly what
that entails. This group may the the minority at this point in time, but
they do exist and these are the people we need to reach. We wont reach
them by, as Roger Yates
has rightly described, behaving more like calculating, deceptive
politicians rather than educators. Why infantilise and patronise people,
thinking that they are too stupid or too morally backward to want to do
the right thing? Why assume that everyone is a moral pygmy who only
wants to take the soft option, the easy, most convenient way? If someone
*genuinely* cares about animals, they will want nothing to do with
supporting the horror of their exploitation, and they will *want* to go
vegan. We seem to be forgetting that motivation is everything. Our job
as vegan advocates is to make sure people understand *why* it's not
morally justifiable to exploit animals. When you talk about research
that claims that people are more likely to go vegan, eventually, if we
talk to them about vegetarianism, and don't mention the word, "vegan",
that leaves out completely the context in which discussions about
veganism take place and what these discussions actually consist of. If
we "ask people to go vegan" without adequately explaining *why*
veganism, and not vegetarianism, or happy meat, is the moral baseline,
the minimum standard of decency towards animals, given that it's
completely unnecessary to our health for us to use them as food, then is
it any wonder that they don't go vegan? Not everyone who's vegan is a
good advocate for veganism, usually because they haven't taken the time
to learn how to be one. In addition to explaining *why* someone should
be vegan, a good vegan educator will explain *how* to go vegan in
increments if that's what the person concerned wants to do. Those
vegetarians eventually go vegan when they are fortunate enough to come
across someone who does explain adequately why it's necessary to be
vegan and how to go about it. Why not be that person? Why not be a vegan
educator? Why make them wait years or decades, or forever, before they
get that understanding? The research you cite, based on what you're
saying, gives absolutely no indication of the quality of vegan education
that people are getting when they are being "asked" to go vegan. If a
new idea is presented without adequate education, of course people are
going to gravitate to something more familiar and convenient, like
vegetarianism, and most likely remain vegetarian until such a time as
they get that education.

This
is not to imply that I think everyone will go vegan instantly. The time
frame, and the strategy for transition they adopt, is their business,
not ours. Our business is to make sure they are crystal clear about why
it's necessary to go *vegan* if they wish to end their exploitation of
animals. That may even involve being vegetarian for a period, but again,
that is not a reason for us to promote or condone vegetarianism as a
morally sound practice. If it forms part of someone's transition, of
course, we shouldn't criticise them for that and we can encourage them,
but that's different to actually endorsing vegetarianism as a morally
justifiable practice. We should never do that.

---

Even
if those people who genuinely care about animals enough to want to stop
all forms of exploitation by going vegan are a small minority at this
time, these are the ones who will form the critical mass that changes
everything. These are the ones we need to reach. It doesn't matter how
many people we talk to who are indifferent. Our response to that should
not be to compromise, or rather, sell out, by talking to them about
vegetarianism or happy meat. We need to just keep talking to as many
people as we can so that we find those, who, like us, want to make a
difference and are dedicated to ending animal slavery and exploitation.
These are the people who will be immensely grateful that you talked to
them about veganism. Their only regret will be that they didn't meet you
sooner.

Minority rules: Scientists discover tipping point for the spread of ideas

<<Scientists
at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10
percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will
always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who
are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center
(SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to
discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority
opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of
societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the
movement of political ideals.

“When
the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is
no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the
amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group
to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the
Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once
that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like
flame.”>>

So
why would we not work to get to that 10% of the population as vegans
rather than promoting vegetarianism? (Or, though not relevant to this
group, welfare reform or "happy" exploitation).

So
let's once and for all do away with the straw man objection that "the
world wont go vegan overnight". We don't need to get the world to go
vegan overnight. We just need to build the vegan movement to the
critical mass, or tipping point level of 10% and the majority of rest of
society will follow as night follows day. 10% is a very achievable
figure, when one considers that, according to a Harris Interactive study
commissioned by Vegetarian Resource Group in 2008, the number of vegans
in the US doubled from 2007 to 2009 to become 2.5% of the population http://www.vrg.org/.../how-many-adults-are-vegan-in-the-u-s/
"This means that 7.5 million people in the U.S. now eat diets that do
not include any animal products". It was predicted that if this rate
continued, "vegans will be 10% of the U.S. population in 2015, 40% in
2019, and in 80 % in 2050!" http://www.occupyforanimals.org/us-vegan-population...

I
don't know what percentage of the US population is vegan right now. But
we will never get to 10% if we keep persuading, or asking people to "go
veg", "go vegetarian", consume "happy" meat or anything else other than
to go vegan.

Once
again, I would like to stress that while I think there is only *one
thing* we should advocate--veganism--I have never said that there is
only *one way* to go vegan, whether "overnight" or otherwise.

----

However,
let's imagine that the "real" tipping point is 20% or 30% rather than
10%. Whenever I talk to people about vegan advocacy and the prospect of
there being more vegans in society I ask if they believe that there are
more vegans "out there" than at present. Most answer that they do
believe that there are more people who can be convinced to become
vegans. Obviously we have no idea of the numbers but most people agree
that there are more to be "found."

Given
the benefits of bringing about this increase in vegans in society, then
it is hard to imagine anything other than growing the number of vegans
in society will help other animals more.

---

Linda:I
read David Sztybel's criticism of the 10% idea, thanks. I guess we have
to ask what the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute scientists mean by
"unshakeable belief". Even though, say, 10% of a population may be lifelong
conservatives, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the kind of
passionate commitment to conservative ideas that would qualify as
"unshakeable belief". My mother, at age 80, has voted for the same
conservative political party for her entire life, yet she has almost no
interest in their policies or in politics at all. So longevity of
affiliation doesn't equate with unshakeable belief. I guess we'll only
know what the tipping point is when we reach it! But whatever it is, we
need to promote veganism to reach it.

<<The
best way to respond to people who do not "care about animals" is to
think that they are not ready yet, that they are thoroughly socialised
speciesists, and that they are part of that percentage of the population
who will need to be forced to go vegan by the weight of numbers of
people already living vegan.>>

Yes,
according to moral psychology, only a minority of people think
independently about morality and make moral choices based on individual
conscience. The majority tend to conform to moral standards based on
need for social acceptance. Our task is to find those who are the moral
standard-setters. It can be disappointing to find that our friends and
relatives are not those.

-------

I've
already said that I would never, ever, promote vegetarianism under any
circumstances because that would be endorsing animal exploitation which
is clearly unethical; just as unethical as endorsing rape, torture and
murder for humans, as all of these are involved in vegetarianism. Any
other stance would be speciesist.

I
will not *ever* endorse and promote animal exploitation and the notion
that a) there is any moral difference between vegetarianism and
meat-eating is absurd and b) I think it's ridiculous to say that
persuading people to go vegetarian is more likely to result in them
going vegan than educating them to go vegan. Frankly, I don't believe
that there is any sound empirical evidence that supports that.

Is that clear enough for you?

----

In
Change of Heart, Nick Cooney suggests that animal advocates should
portray "vegetarian men" as "very masculine" in order to undermine
existing stereotypes.

This is a "key recommendation" that results from Cooney's review of general psychological research data.

He
also suggests that advocates should associate "vegetarian eating" with
the existing values of society as much as possible. This is a version of
what social movement scholars call "frame alignment" which essentially
suggests that it is far easier to sell a message to others if it is
framed within already existing and widely-supported norms and values.

Apart
from the fact that this throws dirt in the face of Donald Watson's idea
of ripening up people to new ideas, there are several problems with
this whole notion. For example, major prevailing societal values are
sexist and racist. Should we endorse those and act accordingly?

Therefore, Spencer,
in respect to the masculinity point, what if the empirical evidence
suggested that one way to get men to listen to us is for animal
advocates to be disrespectful or even violent to women? To appeal to
patriarchs, we act like patriarchs?

Would we say, well, we bow to the empirical data, or do we, like Linda, stick to what we know is right?

--

Pauline WoodingI
think the realities are different partly because of social convention
(although also because we perceive the world differently, which is not
to say one way is superior to the other… just different). Nonhuman
animals are objectified and considered to be of a lower order (sometimes
I think we’ve barely shifted since the time of Descartes), so aren’t
given equal consideration. They aren’t perceived to have equal interest
in their lives, so little worth is given to them. They tend to be
generalised (and perceived in groups), rather than individualised. The
key is to get the public consciousness to change. It’s going to be a
long road in doing this, but all we can do is try. And I still wouldn’t
encourage people to eat them – in whatever quantity they would. If they
are going to reduce the amount they eat, my saying it is better not to
eat any isn’t going to suddenly make them eat more.

Usama Zubair“We
can no more justify using nonhumans as human resources than we can
justify human slavery. Animal use and slavery have at least one
important point in common: both institutions treat sentient beings
exclusively as resources of others. That cannot be justified with
respect to humans; it cannot be justified with respect to
nonhumans—however “humanely” we treat them.”― Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights

I
think we should first note that there are more vegetarians than vegans.
I say let the vegans advocate for veganism and leave it to the
vegetarians to push vegetarianism.

Having
taught social science methodology to postgraduate level, I’m not
convinced about the reliability and validity of the research Spencer
relies on to ask his word-choice hypothetical. Was the research
international in nature? Was it longtitudinal in nature? Was it
qualitative or quantitative? What are the overall sample numbers?

However,
in a way, those are side issues for me because it seems there is no
possibility for control over this notion of encouraging vegetarianism
over veganism. What are these “certain circumstances” repeatedly talked
about? What are we supposed to imagine – a conference about animal use
where all the audience are totally new to the issue? A street stall
visited by and only by people who have no idea about existing
claims-making about human-nonhuman relations? Where is this
“presentation” supposed to be held? What is supposed to be said about
veganism by the presenter and organisers at the vegetarian presentation?

I
see nothing wrong with vegan advocates in their own vegan advocacy
reporting that the majority of existing vegans were vegetarians first –
but they should also note that many modern day vegans are critical of
the “vegetarianism is a gateway” argument. Therefore, they favour a “be
as vegan as possible” encouragement. Vegan advocates can thus
acknowledge history and the fact that most people may approach veganism
incrementally. A “be as vegan as possible” is superior to “go
vegetarian/go vegetarian first” because it avoids animal advocates
having to suggest a lifestyle that is based on animal use. Vegetarianism
is a form of animal use, so vegans will try to avoid appearing to
endorse it.

Spencer
wants us to consider a hypothetical about advocate B who suggests a “go
vegetarian” rather than a “go vegan” message (I prefer “live vegan”
myself.) We have to suppose that “certain circumstances” results in
vegetarian advocacy producing more vegans (in the end) than
straightforward vegan advocacy. IF research data suggests that
vegetarian advocacy in “certain circumstances” really can be shown to
produce this effect, vegans are still not going to be attracted to it
for the reasons discussed on this thread. I would suggest putting this
hypothetical against the “be as vegan as possible” move which seems to
totally avoid the problem. I think the problem with Spencer’s
hypothetical is that it is presented as an isolated issue not in social
context with everything else that is/will be going on.

We
already know that many vegan advocates resist PeTA’s sexist
campaigning, and yet many people say that was their first influence in
their trip to veganism. One implication of Cooney’s key recommendation
is that we appeal to prevailing patriarchal values in society. Many
vegans will be resistant to this too. There is talk in the movement that
we don’t question the “human politics” of animal advocates. Therefore,
people with fascist attitudes may be welcomed into (or not called out
once in) the animal advocacy community. What if we considered another
isolated hypothetical, that research showed for sure that an adherence
to ultra-right politics in some way “made the most vegans.” Would we be
attracted to that?

Because
the hypothetical ignores its inevitable context, it seems to say
nothing about process – it just assumes that there is one that “moves”
vegetarians or “meat reducers” to veganism (in the end). What is this
process? The provision of information and educational resources are
bound to play a role. However, as I said before, we cannot prevent those
still in their alleged “veganism scares me” frame from seeing this
material – it is all over the internet. All it takes is for media and
countermovement forces to alert people to the fact that vegetarian
advocacy is sympathetic to veganism, and the idea is to ultimately
advocate for veganism and, boom!, vegetarianism is a scare word too.

Can
you explain how the means of (i) using different word choices
(e.g.,"vegetarian" instead of "vegan") and/or (ii) encouraging
reductionist measures are *inconsistent* with the ends of (a) reducing
animal consumption as much as possible in the short term and (b)
creating as many vegans as possible in the long-term? I fail to see any
"inconsistency."

Spencer,
regarding this question, as well as your other posts, I feel that I've
already stated my position as clearly as I can and that any further
posts in response to yours will just be repeating myself. Again, I find
the notion that substituting the word, "vegetarian" for "vegan" as the
best way to either reduce animal suffering or to lead more people to
veganism to be patently absurd and so don't want to waste any more time
on that.

I
assume that by "reductionist measures" you mean anything less than
veganism such as happy meat, vegetarianism and welfare reform, which is
aimed at supposedly reducing suffering. My response to that is quite
simple: If you're not vegan, you're supporting animal exploitation.
Period. What we, as animal advocates, are trying to achieve (or should
be) is the abolition of animal exploitation. Therefore, recommending
anything that involves animal exploitation, such vegetarianism or happy
meat, as a way to end animal exploitation is clearly inconsistent.

Linda McKenzie

Spencer Lo
<<Always and in every circumstance, Barbara, even when a
difference in word-choice can mean the difference between saving the
lives and other animals and not saving them?>> No-one has
presented any evidence supporting the idea that using the word,
"vegetarian" instead of "vegan" will make a difference in saving the
lives of other animals, so I'm not sure why you are dwelling on this
hypothetical. It's not "word choice" that is the critical issue, as if
swapping one word for another will make all the difference to someone
supporting speciesism and rejecting it. What's critical is whether we've
properly educated someone to understand that animals are not property
but are moral persons and that there is no justification for exploiting
them; secondly, it's plainly unethical to ever recommend that anyone go
vegetarian since this involves direct support for animal exploitation.
Thirdly, and most pertinently to this question, veganism is not just one
way among many others, including vegetarianism or consuming happy meat,
of reducing suffering.

<<One
important difference is between those who maintain that veganism is
merely a way of reducing suffering, and those who maintain that it is a
fundamental commitment to justice, nonviolence, and a recognition of the
moral personhood of nonhuman animals.

The
difference between these two groups is not merely a matter of abstract
theory—it has profound practical consequences.>>

<<The
abolitionist approach sees veganism as the application of the principle
of abolition to the life of the individual. It is our personal
expression that we embrace the moral personhood of all sentient beings
and we reject the status of nonhumans as chattel property. Veganism is
an essential part of our commitment to nonviolence.

Veganism
is not just a way of reducing suffering; it is what justice for
nonhumans requires at the very least. It is not the last step in our
journey to reject the moral schizophrenia that characterizes the
human/nonhuman relationship; it is the first step. If animals have any
moral significance, then we cannot eat, wear, or use them.>> Gary
L. Francione

What
abolitionists are trying to do is not just reduce suffering but to
abolish the property status of animals and establish the moral
personhood of animals, by advocating veganism. This is the only way that
we will put an end to suffering for animals caused by human
exploitation. Clearly, Spencer, you and I are not in the same group in
terms of how we view the role of veganism.

About me

"“Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless. Christmas dinner's dark and blue. When you stop and try to see it From the turkey's point of view.
Sunday dinner isn't sunny. Easter feasts are just bad luck. When you see it from the viewpoint of a chicken or a duck.
Oh how I once loved tuna salad Pork and lobsters, lamb chops too Till I stopped and looked at dinner From the dinner's point of view.”
Shel Silverstein
"Animals do not 'give' their life to us, as the sugar-coated lie would have it . . . They struggle and fight to the last breath, just as we would do if we were in their place." [John Robbins]